“Cohabitation between the two Popes is possible only if the emeritus remains invisible”

Interview with Massimo Faggioli, historian of Christianity and theologian: “Regulation is necessary for other similar situations are likely to occur”

DOMENICO AGASSO JR
15 Aprile 2019

The coexistence of a pope and his predecessor can work if the emeritus remains "invisible". And in any case, this situation must be regulated, otherwise it is "abandoned to individual responsibilities that are not necessarily in the interest of the Church". Massimo Faggioli, Christian historian and theologian, lecturer at Villanova University (Philadelphia, USA), comments on Ratzinger's "notes" on abuses in the Church. For the theologian, among other things, it makes no sense for Benedict XVI's entourage "not to respond to anyone, only to Ratzinger, and in ways that are not known”.

Professor, how would you describe the publication of the text of Benedict XVI?

“It is an improper intervention relating to a very delicate issue, that of sexual abuse, on which in the universal Church, especially in countries most struck by the crisis, there is no unity of interpretation. The Pope Emeritus commented a process that is still in progress. In addition, the decision to publish the notes in Catholic and non-Catholic media that in the United States are part of the conservative and traditionalist apparatus that has always been against Pope Francis fuels the doubt that it is a coup d'état to weaken Bergoglio - not by the hand Benedict, but by others”.

Is there an issue of method and a “constitutional” one in the Vatican?

“Yes. In six years Joseph Ratzinger had published some texts but on very specific issues. The decisive point is that the Pope Emeritus (who should be rather referred to as Bishop of Rome Emeritus) represents a new institution to the Church, and can function well without particular regulations or legal statutes only if it remains invisible. From the moment it begins to be visible, it must be regulated. The situation has held up so far because Ratzinger has been, on all the crucial questions of the Church, quite invisible”.

How do you explain this change of course?

“I don't think there is malice in Benedict, but on the part of those who intend to prolong his pontificate and thus make him visible”.

In what sense?

“One could imagine in February-March 2013 that all this would go well thanks to the common sense of those who revolve around Benedict, yet instead we must say that not everyone is working with a sense of responsibility”.

What do you expect now?

“The figure of the emeritus should be regulated for the future, for there might be others, and it is a situation that should not be left to itself, otherwise it means abandoning it in the hands of individual responsibilities that are not necessarily in the sole interest of the Church”.

There are those who question the authenticity of the text: what do you think?

“Indeed its genesis is not understood, it is not clear whether it was compiled exclusively by Benedict. The article seems a caricature of Ratzinger's thought. Not least because the institutional response to the crisis of sexual abuse begins with his pontificate. And then it's unlikely that Ratzinger would overlook the evidence that paedophilia in the Church already existed before 1968 and concerns not only the "progressive" wing, but also important prelates linked to rigid orthodoxy”.

In your opinion where is the main problem in this matter?

“The freedom of the Pope emeritus from those who can dispose of his access to mass media, to information channels in the era of digital communication and social media. His entourage is impenetrable and irresponsible, in the sense that it responds to no one, only to Benedict, yet how we do not know”.

This article was published in yesterday's edition of the newspaper La Stampa